From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-08-29 19:41:57
From: Valentin Bonnard <Bonnard.V_at_[hidden]>
> Thomas Matelich wrote:
>
> > <whine> I wanna inherit shared_ptr </whine>
> >
> > Anyway, here's my situation, I'm writing a library for a simple plugin
> > architecture. Objects can be created from classes in dynamic libraries
> > dynamically. I want those objects to be shared_ptrs and be able to
> > construct themselves.
>
> I don't understand.
>
> > I think this qualifies as an isa relationship.
> > In general, their only purpose is to be used like a shared_ptr.
> >
> > So, is shared_ptr always going to use private for share and have no
> > virtual destructor,
>
> Please explain why you think it should expose its implementation
> details and why it should have a virtual destructor.
>
> > or is this matter up for discussion?
>
> We can discuss it, but I think I know the outcome.
I wouldn't be so sure.
We've been considering an improvement to shared_ptr to
add template constructors parameterized on a function
or functor that does the deletion. We can arrange it
so that type of shared_ptr(T*) is the same as the type
of shared_ptr(T*,deleter), which might provide for the
sort of polymorphism Thomas wants. I'll take this
thread as motivation to write the idea up in more
detail.